|
【Even in Urban Cities】
In July’s upper house election, Japan’s conservatives won in a landslide margin of 42.2%pts. Worse still, Sanseito--a party known for rhetoric and behavior disturbingly reminiscent of Militarist Japan--came in second in total votes, trailing only the LDP. [See Previous] But this rightward shift isn’t entirely new. So, why do so many Japanese voters continue to support these conservative parties? The answer may lie in urban voting patterns. Urban cities are often seen as important barometers of social progress, not only in Japan but globally. It’s because they attract people, education, jobs, and diversity. Japan, in particular, is experiencing an ever-increasing concentration of everything in Tokyo. So, what do Tokyo’s election results tell us? In the upper house election, Tokyo elected 7 representatives. Here are the vote shares among them:
Which sums up to:
That’s a staggering 50.3%pt margin conservative victory in Tokyo. In other words, Tokyo is even more conservative than the rest of the country already dominated by conservatives. Here, we witness a stark contrast to the situation in the US. As shared in the previous blog post, the last US presidential election resulted in a conservative victory, but only by a 1.5%pt margin. More importantly, urban areas overwhelmingly voted liberal. This divide is rooted in geography. While much of America’s landmass is rural, the urban centers--though small in area--are densely populated, culturally diverse, and rich in education/job opportunities. This results in urban populations being largely liberal, while rural areas tend to be the complete opposite. This divide is reflected in vote shares in major liberal states and their urban centers: -------------------- New York State: Trump 44% vs. Harris 56% → 12%pt liberal win
California: Trump 38% vs. Harris 58% → 20%pt liberal win
Massachusetts: Trump 36% vs. Harris 62% → 26%pt liberal win
Statewide, people voted liberal, with urban centers showing overwhelming support. What’s more, even in conservative states, urban centers voted liberal. Here are some examples: -------------------- Louisiana: Trump 60% vs. Harris 38% → 22%pt conservative win
Texas: Trump 56% vs. Harris 42% → 14%pt conservative win
Georgia: Trump 51% vs. Harris 49% → 2%pt conservative win
So, even where conservatives won statewide, urban centers tell a very different story. Compare this with Japan, where conservatives won nationally by 42.2%pts, AND in Tokyo by 50.3%pts. The pattern is a complete reversal from the US. -------------------- By the way, the most conservative states in America are all rural: Wyoming: 46%pt conservative win West Virginia: 42%pt conservative win Idaho: 37%pt conservative win (Tokyo: 50.3%pt conservative win) It’s terribly concerning that Tokyo is even more conservative than America’s ultra-conservative rural states. Why then, is Tokyo--arguably one of the most urbanized metropolis in the world--so conservative? We'll explore that question in the next post. Read Next: 80 Years Later, Japan’s Big Problem (3)【Inclusive Education】 Read Previous: 80 Years Later, Japan’s Big Problem (1)【People’s Choice】 Read Theme: Perspective 【What Elections Tell Us】
In the US presidential election last November, a rapist and convicted felon Donald Trump, who was found liable in a sexual assault lawsuit, was elected. Trump and his enablers loudly propagate, “Sexual crimes must not be tolerated. Therefore, we must shut out and deport immigrants/refugees.” However, if they’re serious about “Sexual crimes must not be tolerated,” then the easiest first step is to "Not vote for a rapist." What’s more, Trump and his enablers repeatedly make discriminatory remarks and incite violence against people living outside of the majority identity, including women and LGBTQ individuals. We can see through these actions that “Sexual crimes must not be tolerated” is nothing more than an empty slogan for Trump and his enablers, lacking sincerity, and only using those words for personal gain. Sadly, this election revealed the fact that many conservative people in America still refuse to elect a female president, spew toxic masculinity reflecting mental immaturity, and disturbingly insist on "Your (female) body, my (male) choice!" It’s a genuine disappointment that the liberal efforts to advance gender equality and human rights fell short. That said, it's not all without hope. In fact, the national popular vote tells us a more nuanced story.
Considering these facts, we can observe that the pendulum of gender equality in America is swinging back and forth between the liberals (Democratic) and conservatives (Republican), in order to bring it to parity as if to approach an equilibrium. On the other hand, in Japan last October. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended that Japan amend its Civil Law which requires the married couples use the same surname, and introduce an optional separate surname system. This was the fourth such recommendation, with the committee pointing out that “regarding existing discriminatory provisions . . . no steps had been taken.” The committee also recommended revising the Imperial Household Law which limits succession to male heirs down the male line, and the repeal of regulations requiring spousal consent for women seeking abortion. Furthermore, the committee called for sincere efforts to guarantee the rights of the wartime “Comfort Women” victims [See #21]. Against these recommendations, the Japanese government, led by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), responded last month by deciding to exclude this committee from Japan’s contributions to the UN. Rather than acknowledging the mistakes of discrimination and advancing toward gender equality, the LDP administration instead retaliated in a way that seemingly mimics Trump’s petty tactics. Founded in 1955, the LDP has ruled most of post-war Japan with an exception of 5 years in aggregate. While many agree that the general election last October dealt a huge loss for the LDP, it still remains the largest and continues to hold power. And the vote shares further tell us a disappointing fact.
The fact of the matter is, the conservatives won by a whopping margin of 25%pts! Given this, unlike in the US, there are no signs of a pendulum swinging toward gender equality in Japan, rigidly stuck on the conservative side. This creates a certain sense of hopelessness in Japan. In any national election, who we vote for reveals the state of the nation. It reflects people's thoughts, attitudes, and values. Of course, it’s true that “Gender equality is not the only issue of consideration for my vote.” Yet, the fact that this issue has been left behind for nearly 70 years allows us to see through people's true feelings. Read Next: Truth on Gender Equality (6)【Action Creates Progress】 Read Previous: Truth on Gender Equality (4)【Respect Individuality】 Complete Series: Truth on Gender Equality (1)～(6) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Read Theme: Perspective In our pursuit of a fulfilling life, it’s hard to overstate the importance of thinking deeply with our own head about all things in life.
This involves analyzing “Why it happened the way it did,” digging deep into “Why we did it the way we did,” “What/how we thought when we did it,” and “Why we thought that way at the time” in a logical sequence. And then, once we reach a certain conclusion through deep-thinking, does it mean we should never think about it again? The answer is, no. Because if that were the case, then it’d be like admitting our own inability to grow as a person. When we’re a person able to grow and become even better, upon deeply revisiting the same issue once again, we may reach a different conclusion from years ago. It’s because as we grow, new sceneries open up that we couldn’t see before. Even if our “past self” had thought through about a worthy issue and decided on it, we must ask ourselves once again, does that conclusion still ring true to our “present self?” To put it another way, every time we stumble upon that same issue, it’s time for another “Deep-Thinking.” In this way, life is a series of opportunities to deepen our thoughts. And the lifelong “Deep-Thinking” is vital in learning about our own patterns of success/failure; to continue to grow and become even better. Yet some critics may argue, “But isn’t that Over-Thinking?” So, let’s think about that, too. What is “Over-Thinking,” really? For example, most of us can agree that “Deep-Thinking” in a positive direction is very important. And as long as we’re taking action based on it, it isn’t “Over-Thinking.” To clarify, the “positive direction” here means the “direction that makes this world a better place for everyone.” However, even with a positive thought, when we can’t take action based on it, or when we feel trapped/frozen, it can be “Over-Thinking.” It’s because, despite just inches away from making a tangible positive difference, the thought remains only in the head, unable to put it into action. When we catch ourselves in this situation, let us muster the courage to take a step forward based on what we believe to be our best thought at that point in time. Once we start taking action, a new scenery will open up. On the other hand, persisting to think in a negative direction is the classic pattern of “Over-Thinking.” Consequently, when we catch ourselves teetering in that direction, we should stop right away. It’s because this line of thought won’t take us anywhere near the “direction that makes this world a better place for everyone.” Simply put, it’s futile not only for ourselves, but also for others. In the past, despite having been blessed with a great insight, some people got so tangled up in the web of “Over-Thinking” that, in the worst case, they regrettably succumbed to believe there’s no way out and consequently took their own lives. As a result, they’re among the unfortunate examples of good people who originally set out to make the world better, yet ended up forever unable to put it into action. Also, both in the past and now, from time to time, we come across the abuse of the word “Over-Thinking.” It’s when people who wish to maintain the status-quo stubbornly tell us, “You’re over-thinking!” trying to derail our action for change even when it stems from a positive thought. Truth be told, no matter how young we are, or how old we get, we all must grow and become even better as a person. This applies to everyone, from children to the elderly. It’s a lifelong duty for the better tomorrow of everyone in this world. For the happiness of each and every one of us; our responsibility to honestly pursue global peace. For this reason, the lifelong “Deep-Thinking” in a positive direction is very important. And as long as we put it into action, we won’t fall into the trap of “Over-Thinking.” Read Theme: Perspective 【Safe & Polite】
Safety. It’s the number 1 envy of many people around the world when referring to Japan. The reason? It’s safe to walk around the cities even alone at night! Although this may likely seem way too ordinary to most Japanese, it’s a fresh surprise for people around the world. Surely, despicable crimes do occur every day even in Japan, but generally speaking, its safety is top notch by global comparison. And when it comes to safety, Japan deserves great praise especially for its strict gun control. Gun possessions are largely prohibited, and the enforcement of this law is superb. Guns are hardly ever accessible to the general public, and consequently people live without the fear of gun violence. How wonderful is that? It’s evident when compared to the US, where the possession of firearms is widely allowed by the constitution. In the US, where mass shootings are seemingly endless, our children need be prepared for the worst just going to school every day. Despite such foolishness, we still live in an absurd society with immature masculinity idolizing guns, senselessly murdering many people, daily. Even if not killed, people suffer injuries, disabilities, traumas, gun threats, gun assaults, the sorrows of losing a loved one, or the unmeasurable emotional toll from the fear of gun violence [See #68]. In addition to Japan’s safety, many people around the world also envy the politeness that they pleasantly encounter while visiting Japan. This could be seen as the positive side of Japan’s not-so-enviable “cookie-cutter” education system. And for Japan’s safety/politeness, many people praise it as a “nice country.” But let us ask, is it really? We’re compelled to ask this question because Japan’s safety/politeness seem to be maintained by refusing/excluding those in real need of help around the world. In fact, in Japan both the past and now, we hear of discriminatory sentiments like “We no longer feel safe because of the many foreigners moving into our neighborhood.” Or, we hear divisive comments such as “Better not go near the areas where many foreigners live because it’s dangerous.” The “foreigners” mentioned here likely refer not to those from overseas who appear to live fancy with glamorous jobs, but rather, to the people from overseas studying/working the hard labor who aren’t necessarily well off socio-economically. On the other hand, the US and many European nations that are often referred to as developed countries work hard to welcome diversity and many immigrants. These nations work hard to also welcome many refugees fleeing war/violence/conflict/persecution in their home countries. Immigrants Welcomed (% of population): US 50.63 million (15%) Germany 15.76 million (16%) UK 9.36 million (14%) France 8.52 million (14%) Japan 2.77 million (2%) Refugees Welcomed: Germany 2,590 thousand France 660 thousand UK 450 thousand US 410 thousand Japan 20 thousand Ukrainian Refugees Welcomed: Poland 19,900 thousand Germany 1,170 thousand US 540 thousand UK 240 thousand France 70 thousand Japan 2 thousand To be sure, it’s a great challenge for people of different cultures/customs to share and live together in the same place. It’s rather common to find that our “norms and common sense” aren’t really at all a norm or common sense to others from diverse backgrounds. Welcoming diversity and mixing people from various backgrounds can sometimes be quite messy. Inclusivity is a very difficult task even with a big heart, requiring now and then to compromise on safety/politeness to a certain extent. In the next post, let’s dig in a little deeper on this point. Read Next: A Nice Country (2)【Nice Person】 Read Theme: Perspective 【Let's Commit】
What we’ll do from now on about the Controllables. That, we can decide on our own and take action. Yes, it’s totally up to us. The choice is ours. We can simply look away and let it pass by. Or, we can list up an assortment of reasons to avoid action. Indeed, it’s nearly endless when we begin to list up “the reasons why we can’t.” “I already have too much to do” is the norm in our busy modern society, and it’s tempting to gravitate toward the easy way out. But then again, despite the temptation, regardless of the inconvenience, we can instead commit to taking action from now on. And when we truly commit ourselves, we come to realize that life is a continuity of nows. It’s one now after another. In fact, now, then more now, and then now some more. “Oh, oh, let me just finish this project, and then I’ll get to it.” Or… “I wanna do it but now’s just not the right time--let me get to it when things settle down a bit.” As we wait for that perfect timing, now just keeps on passing by. Instead, start from where we can, now. Naturally, not everything will be all sunshine and lollipops. Despite our good intentions, some people may be put off. A few may even feel threatened by seeing what they didn’t want to see, sometimes unexpectedly in themselves. After accepting our goodwill, perhaps, some may kick sand at us as we part ways. When things don’t go as expected, it can be heartbreaking; it can feel discouraging at times. Nevertheless, to recognize all of that without losing sight of what’s truly important; continuing to grow through deeper thoughts. To see all that’s out there; to try to understand them as best we can. That, indeed, is a true commitment. And when we truly commit ourselves, we come to realize that there are quite a few things we’re capable of; where we can make a real difference. Yes, there are many Controllables in this world that we can decide on our own and take action. It’s completely up to us because our life is what we ourselves build it to be. We desire to advance forward; we aspire to constructively live a fulfilling life. It’s less about Until now, and much more about From now on. Let us take action from now on. Read Previous: From Now On (2)【Controllables】 Complete Series: From Now On (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Perspective 【Controllables】
Uncontrollables: things in life that’s not up to ourselves; things which we can’t choose or decide for ourselves. Controllables: things in life that’s up to ourselves; things which we can choose or decide for ourselves. For example, “Getting admitted to ABC University” is Uncontrollable because we don’t admit ourselves to our dream school. On the contrary, “Doing everything I can to strive for my dreams” is Controllable because that’s something that we can decide on our own and take action. To clarify, Controllable doesn’t mean that the result is under our own control. In fact, the desired result may elude us, especially in the short run. For instance, we may get denied admission to ABC University. Nevertheless, setting our sight on the longer-term outcome, “What we do from now on” is Controllable. In this case, the longer-term outcome may be eventually getting admitted to ABC University. Or, it may be about growing and becoming a better person to live a fulfilling life; learning to adopt a broader perspective through deeper thoughts. On a similar note, the very theme of this blog, “Making this world a better place for everyone” is also regrettably Uncontrollable. It’s because this goal is so grand--so much bigger than any one of us; immeasurable within any one person’s lifetime. Nevertheless, “To advance toward that grand goal by helping people in need as best we can, one person at a time” is Controllable. That’s something that we can decide on our own and take action. Likewise, as cited in the previous post, “Being born in a war zone” is Uncontrollable. Nevertheless, “To have the courage and principles to say No! to war, No! to injustice, despite the fear of retaliation from the warmongering authority and its enablers” is Controllable. Being born into poverty; to a dysfunctional family; being raised under abusive parents. They’re also Uncontrollable. Nevertheless, “Becoming a well-educated, positive-minded adult who knows the joys of self-reliance through hard work; choosing a life-long partner to share all the happiness; mustering the moral courage to end the hurtful pattern of parental abuse” is Controllable. Also, “Being born as a minority exposed to injustices such as discrimination, oppression, or persecution” is Uncontrollable. Nevertheless, “Learning to think with deep compassion, actively striving to eliminate the traditional privileges so that our world will one day become a fair place for all” is Controllable. In this way, what’s truly important is What we do from now on about the Controllables. And that, we can decide on our own and take action. Read Next: From Now On (3)【Let's Commit】 Read Previous: From Now On (1)【What's Truly Important】 Complete Series: From Now On (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Perspective 【What's Truly Important】
From college, jobs, marriage; to volunteer work, friendships, and family relations. In so many facets of our life, we evaluate each of our moments. We rejoice our moments of success with a proud smile, or regret our moments of failure that didn’t go as expected. Those evaluations are mostly in retrospect. That is, we reflect upon what had already happened; what had already passed by. And in those moments of evaluation, oftentimes, we’re prone to making excuses. In a sense, it’s what everybody does. Yet, it’s completely up to us whether to repeat our usual patterns, or to change it. It’s our choice, indeed; it’s our decision. In moments of evaluation, we begin by analyzing "Why it happened the way it did." We reflect upon "Why we did it the way we did," "What/how we thought when we did it," and "Why we thought that way at the time." These reflections are vital in learning about our own patterns of success/failure. Nonetheless, when we remain in the reflections for too long, we tend to begin entertaining self-infatuations, such as “Look at me, I did so great!” Or, we start engaging in the art of making excuses, explaining “Believe me, there was nothing else I could’ve done.” Either way, it’s neither constructive nor healthy when we linger in the reflections for too long. For this reason, we should keep our moments of evaluation within the scope of learning. And beyond that point, it’s more constructive to shift our focus to what’s truly important. Yes, what’s truly important is Given that experience, what we do from now on. Yes, it’s less about Until now. It’s much more about From now on. It’s because our life is what we ourselves build it to be. In all fairness, there are things in life that’s not up to ourselves; things which we can’t choose or decide for ourselves. For example, many people just happen to be born in a war zone. Or, into poverty. Or, to a dysfunctional family. Or, raised under abusive parents. Or, as a minority exposed to injustices such as discrimination, oppression, or persecution. They’re out of our own control--we call these aspects in life as Uncontrollables. Nevertheless, despite these inborn situations, there are things in life that’s up to ourselves; things which we can choose or decide for ourselves. And the more we find ourselves in a fortunate situation, the more things in life are under our own control. We call these aspects in life as Controllables. In the next post, let’s dig in a little deeper on these aspects. Read Next: From Now On (2)【Controllables】 Complete Series: From Now On (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Perspective 【Congressional】
Thankfully, the presidential election held last month honored one person, one vote as the candidate with the most votes won. As basic as that may sound in a democracy, let alone in an American democracy, it’s truly a relief to see that every single vote was recognized as a rightful voice of a real person. Nonetheless, the terrible truth is that the electoral votes were on the verge of tipping the other way, yet again, despite Biden now topping 7 million more votes from the American people. In order to do away with this unnecessarily confusing and frustratingly twisted electoral system, a Constitutional amendment is required. To do so, it calls for a two-thirds vote by the members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the approval by three-fourths of the states. So, how difficult is that in reality? To answer this question, we must first understand that the House allocates its representatives to each of the 50 states based on population, whereas the Senate allocates 2 senators per state without any regard to population. This disproportionate allocation of senators undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Let’s explain this a bit further. For example, the state of California boasts the largest population among the U.S. states at roughly 39.52 million, compared to the state of Wyoming with the least population at 0.58 million. Because 39 million more people live in California than Wyoming, or 68 times more, the House allocates its representatives reflecting this difference more or less proportionately by entitling 53 representatives for California and 1 for Wyoming. In this way, the democratic principle of one person, one vote is achieved by allocating the number of representatives based on population. On the contrary, Senate entitles 2 senators per state without any regard to population as written in Article One of the US Constitution ratified 230 years ago. This means that the voice of a California senator representing 19.76 million people carry exactly the same weight in the Senate as the voice of a Wyoming senator representing 0.29 million people. Essentially, a Wyoming resident is granted greater voting strength than a California resident, by a whopping 68 multiple, despite democracy requires the government weigh the vote of citizens as equally as possible. This disproportionate allocation of senators is a far cry from humbly recognizing that every vote is a rightful voice of a real person that must be heard. Based on these facts, it’s fair to say that a two-thirds vote in the Senate has diverged too far from the democratic principle of one person, one vote. What this essentially means is that the fundamental principle of democracy – that is, to make decisions based on the most votes – isn’t true in America when it comes to amending the twisted political systems such as allowing the electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential election, or allocating 2 senators per state without any regard to population. In fact, numerous nationwide polls conducted over a 20-year period show that roughly 60% of Americans favor a direct popular vote for presidential elections instead of an electoral vote. Nevertheless, the disproportionate allocation of senators is blocking America from making this sensible change. The closest the U.S. has come to replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote was in 1969, when the House overwhelmingly passed a proposed Constitutional amendment by a vote of 339 to 70. Regrettably, without the support of numerous senators of less populous rural states, the proposal never made it through the Senate. What’s more, the other requirement for a Constitutional amendment is the approval by three-fourths of the states, which would be 38 states today. Likewise, as this requirement also disregards the variance in population from state to state, it again serves to diverge far from the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Based on these unfortunate facts, we can’t help but draw a regrettable conclusion that a Constitutional amendment is quite unlikely, even when the majority of Americans demand the change. The residents of the less populous rural states wield disproportionately larger power than one person, one vote to influence the political decisions for the entire country. The troubling truth is that our Constitution, of all things, grants them that power to subvert our democracy. Read Next: Big Problems of the US Election (3)【Gun Policy】 Read Previous: Big Problems of the US Election (1)【Presidential】 Complete Series: Big Problems of the US Election (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Perspective 【Presidential】
America is often referred to as the beacon of democracy in the world – the shining example, the standard bearer. In all fairness, people’s strong sense of responsibility in our political trajectory and the vibrant involvement of our people in elections are truly admirable features of the American democracy. On the contrary, our 230-year-old Constitutional clause establishing the procedures of a presidential election has diverged too far from democracy. We’ve just witnessed this dichotomy, once again, as Americans passionately engaged in a messy election last week where Biden won the presidency. Here, we’ll dive in deeper to better understand the American democracy by examining our presidential and congressional elections. The fundamental principle of democracy is quite simple: the candidate with the most votes wins. To be fair, a greater number of votes by no means is a proof of justice, or is it meant to be construed as correct. In fact, there are ample occasions in which the majority is flat-out wrong. It simply means, at a given point in time, that it exceeds minorities in number. That's all it means. Nevertheless, as long as democracy is considered the best system available thus far, it’s understandable to award a victory to the highest vote getter. Further, it’s even more desirable when the winning majority compassionately respects the minority, demonstrates sincere empathy, and assumes the grave responsibility of leading our society to a better tomorrow for all. The troubling truth is that the US presidential election doesn’t necessarily follow this fundamental principle of democracy. That is, the candidate with the most votes may lose. As a matter of fact, in the last presidential election in 2016, Hillary Clinton received approximately 66 million votes against Donald Trump’s 63 million. Yet, we all painfully know that Hillary lost and Trump won the election, despite Hillary getting 3 million more votes. Similarly, in 2000, George W. Bush won the election despite getting 540 thousand fewer votes. In the history of the US presidential elections, we count three other times when a candidate with the most votes lost the election. How can that be? The culprit is Article Two of the US Constitution ratified in 1788, which allows the total votes cast by the electors (Electoral Votes) to determine the winner of the presidential election, instead of the total votes cast by the American people (Popular Votes). Whaaat?@! I know, it’s unnecessarily confusing and frustratingly twisted, so let’s explain a bit more. For example, the state of Michigan – known for its car industry – has a population of roughly 10 million, which accounts for just about 3% of the national population of 328 million. Of the 538 total number of electors required by our Constitution, Michigan is allocated 12 electors, or roughly 2% of all electors. In this way, electors are allocated to each of the 50 states and Washington DC, based more or less on population. However, the real issue is what follows next. In 2016, Hillary received 2.27 million votes from the people in Michigan, against Trump’s 2.28 million. Trump won Michigan by a razor thin margin of 0.2% in people’s votes, yet, all 12 electors of Michigan voted for Trump because of a winner-take-all method. As a result, Trump received 12 electoral votes, and Hillary received zero in Michigan. With an exception of Maine and Nebraska, all 48 states and the District of Columbia employ this winner-take-all method when it comes to electoral votes. As such, even when a candidate gets fewer votes from the American people, the same candidate may end up getting more votes from the electors, thus winning the presidency. As evidenced above, the US presidential election is an antiquated system that has, over the course of 230 years, diverged too far from the democratic principle of one person, one vote. In the case of 2016 election, 3 million people’s voices went unheard. This result is a clear indication of an undemocratic system, which has naturally invited many Americans to feel that Trump is not my president or an illegitimate president. Thankfully, the presidential election of this past week honored one person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes won. Nonetheless, the electoral votes were on the verge of tipping the other way, yet again, despite Biden getting 6 million more votes from the American people. Let us all humbly recognize that each and every one of these votes is a rightful voice of a real person that must be heard. Read Next: Big Problems of the US Election (2)【Congressional】 Complete Series: Big Problems of the US Election (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Perspective 【Life or Livelihood?】
Nearly six months have passed since the novel coronavirus suddenly changed the way we live. To our dismay, its intensity hasn’t waned even under the sunshine and humidity of the summer, elevating our devastation to 19.6 million confirmed cases and 727 thousand fatalities. As each day passes by, we remind ourselves of the hope to end this inconceivable sorrow, to secure the health and life of each and every one of us. At the same time, we’re up against the urgency to protect the livelihood of each and every one of us by returning to work. It’s this dilemma that we increasingly feel the heat, everywhere. Which one do we prioritize – people’s life or livelihood? For us to try to solve this seemingly unsolvable puzzle, one country offers a crucial hint. That is, Sweden. Unlike other European nations, Sweden was quick to adopt an unorthodox strategy of largely defying lockdowns and restrictions. Although it’s Scandinavian neighbors – Norway, Finland, and Denmark – all enforced painful lockdowns and restrictions, Sweden carried on with business as usual. In all fairness, Sweden tests for the novel coronavirus on par with most other nations, as it certainly embraces the basic foundation of democracy built upon facts and disclosure. As such, Sweden has tested approximately 6% of its total population, compared to Norway 8%, Finland 7%, and Denmark 28% – the most among developed nations. The US is at 18%, and Japan is by far the least among developed nations at less than 1%. Despite all four Scandinavian nations are solid in testing, the positivity rate per test is an alarming 14% for Sweden, compared to 1 to 2% for its three neighbors. What’s more, the fatality per a million people is a devastating 563 thousand for Sweden, compared to Norway 48 thousand, Finland 60 thousand, and Denmark 106 thousand. What these facts clearly indicate is that the risk of infection and death from this virus stands at nearly 5 to 14 times in Sweden who carried on with business as usual, compared to its three neighbors who enforced painful lockdowns and restrictions. Which takes us back to the dilemma addressed earlier: Which one do we prioritize – people’s life or livelihood? Compared to its neighbors, Sweden absolutely paid a huge sacrifice in people’s life. In exchange for that sacrifice, were people’s livelihoods saved? That is, did Sweden’s economy prosper well beyond its neighbors to more than make up for the 5 to 14 times in infection and death rates? The terrible truth is that it didn’t. In fact, Sweden’s economy and livelihood suffered nearly as much damage from the pandemic as its neighboring countries. The facts speak for themselves. As of June, the unemployment rate in Sweden stood at 9%, Norway 5%, Finland 7%, and Denmark 6%. Furthermore, the 2020 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to contract in Sweden by 5%, Norway 6%, Finland 6%, and Denmark 5%. What these figures tell us is the troubling truth that Sweden suffered nearly as much damage in its economy and livelihood despite sacrificing a great many lives. And this teaches us that people’s life and livelihood aren’t a dilemma after all, but are one and together. It’s because our global economy and supply chain are all connected together in a web. Even if one nation elects to defy lockdowns and restrictions, the fact of the matter is that we’re all in it together. Despite forcing the domestic economy to open up, the domestic businesses are stuck with the same conditions that cause recession everywhere else. Likewise, the domestic manufacturing sector is just as crippled when everyone else shuts down. And naturally, even in the absence of lockdowns and restrictions, people will likely go out less and limit their spending when they don’t feel safe. As such, our livelihood can’t be sustained by going it alone. Our own domestic consumption and manufacturing can’t carry the entire weight – we all need the global cooperation to support one another. Sweden, indeed, offers us this crucial hint. In our connected world where we’re all in it together, the supposed choice between people’s life and livelihood is mistaken. It’s because there’s no livelihood that can more than make up for the devastating loss of life. Read Previous: Lessons from Corona Crisis (3)【Global Warming】 Complete Series: Lessons from Corona Crisis (1)～(4) [1] [2] [3] [4] Read Theme: Perspective |
ENG/JPN Posted Alternately
日本語/英語を交互に掲載 Author ﾌﾟﾛﾌｨｰﾙ
JOE KIM Theme ﾃｰﾏ
All
Visits ｱｸｾｽ15,321 (as of 3/1/2026) 
|
RSS Feed